Integral Petroleum S.A. V Petrogat FZE & Ors.

Integral Petroleum S.A. V Petrogat FZE & Ors.

The court found the transfers from Petrogat to Company A were transactions at an undervalue, made for the prohibited purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of Integral as creditor. Integral was a victim under section 423. Due to the defendants' refusal to identify Company A and their control over both companies, and drawing adverse inferences from their conduct, the court held it appropriate to order the individual defendants jointly and severally to pay Integral up to the amount of its outstanding judgment.

Parties
Claimant: Integral Petroleum S. A.; First Defendant: Petrogat FZE; Second Defendant: Ms Mahdieh Sanchouli; Third Defendant: Mr Hosseinali Sanchouli; Fourth Defendant: Mr Kanybek Beisenov
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Judgment After Defence Struck Out; Application for Judgment Under Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant; declaration and monetary order granted.
Legal Topics
Transactions at an Undervalue, Fraudulent Transfers, Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Restorative Relief, Jurisdiction of English Courts
Insolvency Law Commercial Law Transactions at an Undervalue Fraudulent Transfers Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Restorative Relief Jurisdiction of English Courts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Integral Petroleum S. A.

Claimant

Petrogat FZE

First Defendant

Ms Mahdieh Sanchouli

Second Defendant

Mr Hosseinali Sanchouli

Third Defendant

Mr Kanybek Beisenov

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Judgment After Defence Struck Out; Application for Judgment Under Section 423 Insolvency Act 1986

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were the transfers from Petrogat to Company A transactions at an undervalue under section 423 Insolvency Act 1986?
  2. 2 Were the transfers made for a prohibited purpose (defrauding creditors)?
  3. 3 Is Integral Petroleum S. A. a 'victim' under section 423(5)?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the transfers from Petrogat to Company A were transactions at an undervalue, made for the prohibited purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of Integral as creditor. Integral was a victim under section 423. Due to the defendants' refusal to identify Company A and their control over both companies, and drawing adverse inferences from their conduct, the court held it appropriate to order the individual defendants jointly and severally to pay Integral up to the amount of its outstanding judgment.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant; declaration and monetary order granted.

Orders

  • Declaration that the transfers identified are transactions defrauding creditors within section 423 Insolvency Act 1986.
  • Order that Ms Mahdieh Sanchouli, Mr Hosseinali Sanchouli, and Mr Kanybek Beisenov are jointly and severally liable to pay Integral Petroleum S. A. the amount of the transfers up to the amount of Integral's outstanding judgment (US$1,700,613.52, subject to adjustment).